M/s.Nikitha Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/10054/2026 · 2026-04-15
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 455 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 455 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010198892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 10054/2026
Between:
1. M/S.NIKITHA ENTERPRISES,, REP BY ITS PROP. BATHULA LAKSHMAIAH, 0/O.FLAT N0.157A, 1ST FLOOR, D.NO.77-149-21, PAYAKAPURAM VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIATE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237
2. THE TAHSILDAR, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TULLURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522237
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
2 declaring the action of respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No. AP 39 WH 3159 of the Petitioner without following any procedure under statutes as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 and provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957., and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner from their custody and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the and 3rd respondents to grant interim custody the Lorry bearing Nos. AP 39 WH 3159 of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10054 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No.AP39 WH 3159 and its Trailer belonging to the petitioner, in connection with FIR No.95 of 2026, without following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent without authority of law and in violation of the provisions of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He further submits that a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for the release of the vehicle, and he relies on the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.1570 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents did not refute the
4 submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by an earlier decision of this Court.
5. Considering the submissions made and with the consent of
learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission.
6. In addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat1, in its expression held that merely keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful purpose.
7. Apart from the above, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the respective counsel that similar orders have been passed in identical matters. Thus, this Court is inclined to pass a similar order.
8. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid judgments, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders in terms of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and collect the due seigniorage fee and penalty, as per law and release the vehicle
1 (2002) 10 SCC 283
5 bearing No.AP39 WH 3159 seized by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 16.04.2026 PSA